Please take the time to read about the Electoral College before voting, Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I voted No because I don't trust the current government to replace it. I would be happy to see the states require their delegates to vote with the popular winner, for the time being at least.
That would solve most of the biggest problems without letting the scoundrels who took gerrymandering to a high art form get their grubby paws on it.
Tom
That would solve most of the biggest problems without letting the scoundrels who took gerrymandering to a high art form get their grubby paws on it.
Tom
Or, it could be modified, which is sometimes my preference: Electoral votes based on congressional district results (with congressional districts having to be closer to the same population, not gerrymandered, and some other preferred modifications to current delineation). Or allotted based on proportion of votes cast--no winner-take-all scenarios (even both of these together). There are other alternatives that would modify but not eliminate the EC.
Other times, I prefer elimination of the EC and imposition of direct election of Presidents by popular vote...but direct democracy is better until it isn't, and then it's a real problem.
Frankly, there is no election system that does not have some problems...especially when the people who design the system are the ones who would likely benefit from its design.
Other times, I prefer elimination of the EC and imposition of direct election of Presidents by popular vote...but direct democracy is better until it isn't, and then it's a real problem.
Frankly, there is no election system that does not have some problems...especially when the people who design the system are the ones who would likely benefit from its design.
This is what I would rather see.
An overhaul of Washington DC that uses the experience gained in the 200 years since 1800.
Sadly, I don't trust the people elected under the current system to do that.
It's a problem for me.
Tom
I don't think it should be abolished but it's broken and needs to be fixed. The states electoral points should be proportional in every state which it is not. So some states get more points for less people depending on the state. Some of the states with less clout will feel more like their vote doesn't matter so much, especially when it's disproportional.
The electoral method of electing the President is a very stupid way to elect the President, causing a number of well-known problems (vote wasting, unequal vote weight, voter apathy, and not uncommonly the election of the candidate who didn't get the popular vote) . If electing a representative or executive by the overall popular vote were somehow "dangerous" or produced bad results, then we would see such bad results in the state-wide voting on Senators and Governors.
In any case, there is no reason to try to abolish the electoral system of electing the President by an amendment to the Constitution, since the Constitution gives to states the authority to award its electoral votes in whatever manner it chooses. This is most readily illustrated by the fact the Nebraska and Maine do not use the state-winner-take-all method of awarding their electoral votes that the 48 other states do. All that is required to solve the numerous problems caused by the electoral system is states adopting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com Urge your state representatives to adopt it. It is well on its way to solving the all of the problems caused by the state-winner-take-all system of awarding states' electoral votes.
In any case, there is no reason to try to abolish the electoral system of electing the President by an amendment to the Constitution, since the Constitution gives to states the authority to award its electoral votes in whatever manner it chooses. This is most readily illustrated by the fact the Nebraska and Maine do not use the state-winner-take-all method of awarding their electoral votes that the 48 other states do. All that is required to solve the numerous problems caused by the electoral system is states adopting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com Urge your state representatives to adopt it. It is well on its way to solving the all of the problems caused by the state-winner-take-all system of awarding states' electoral votes.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Do you believe this to be a problem based on population?
For instance, if state X had a population of 50 million and state Y had a population of 10 million, do you feel the electoral vote balance should be identical for every state rather than a ration of 5:1?
Even if someone does "feel" that, there is no way to achieve equal voting weight (which is what you are referring to) by either the state-winner-take-all or district-winner-take-all methods of awarding electoral votes.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that gerrymandering from both sides, is a sense of indirect, legal rigging?
Does a lack of trust in the government indirectly also suggest a lack of trust in the election process?
Yes.
But I am not your evidence slave. Wikipedia can easily provide you with the EC per capita representation of both California and Wyoming.
Tom
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I suppose the best way to be fair and equal is to just go off of total popular votes.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Haha, I was asking your beliefs. Not evidence. I like to believe I already have done due diligence on the whacky process.
I think the enormously unequal voting weight that both the state- and district-winner-take-all methods of awarding electoral votes violates the constitutional principles of equal protection and one-person-one-vote.
When a some states like counts one vote as three votes because of the electoral points, I see a bit of an issue. Obviously candidates want to get the states where electoral points counts for 300% of the voter population. Even though states vote on a winner take all points, getting the correct states make a difference when the voting is close.
Exactly!
This is precisely what nationalpopularvote. com is advocating.
Nothing about meddling with the Constitution or anything. Just let the people pick the president by democratic methods.
Tom
My beliefs are based on the evidence that is easily available.
That's why I am not a theist doncha'know.
Tom
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Why do you suppose so many trust in government and equality of election process with all of this evidence to the contrary?
Is it some sort of mental conditioning to get the herd to believe something is just and that they actually matter in a democracy that isn't so?
Last edited:
I think a big, maybe the biggest, problem is the standard religious teaching of "Trust the Authority" even when they tell you to believe something really implausible.
This country is very religious and this crap wouldn't be tolerated in most western countries.
Tom